The products and services have been every increasing in terms of numbers and forms. It is unstoppable chain of efforts when it comes to the journey of solving a problem. Why can not one design one ideal solution for a specific problem, that remains the best forever? Why keep designing new products and services for solving the same problem? Why can’t we visualize and think about the ideal solution as the final result or outcome and develop the ideal solution once for all? Is this an ideality ? Can this ideality be reality? If not, why and if yes when and how?
Irrespective of those questions as mentioned, let us firs look into what is design thinking. It is thinking like a designer to solve a problem. It is about going to the person in pain and understand how this pain can be eliminated through a product or a service. Understand why this pain needs an attention and why this is worth a problem to be solved. Before working on designing a solution as a product or service, one needs to really understand the pain and problem and why it is significant enough to be addressed with time, money and resources. This much before even the product is designed. If we can not first learn to understand and appreciate the problem and pain and the people who are facing this, we can not succeed in designing a solution. We will create some solution but we will not be able to create the solution, as an impact that the end users are seeking. There is a need for having a process, to immerse in their problems. Designers need to collaborate with the stakeholders starting with the person in pain or people in problem. They need to understand their ecosystem and challenges. When the problem is being understood and their pain is being felt, the boundary of solution and what to expect minimum from such a solution evolves or rather starts emerging. The attributes of the solution or the criteria on which the solution could be called as a fit gets clearly articulated. These are solely from the perspective of the people facing the problem who will be buying these solutions from the market when they arrive. They will judge them whether they fit their needs and expectations of being a solution or not. Design thinking is a mindset for first to be focused on the people and their pains and problems from their perspective.
Design thinking is a problem solving mindset. It leverages designer’s sensibilities to continually understand people’s needs, expectations, pains and problems in order to bring out solutions (products and/or services) that are feasible (solves the problems and fit the set of expectations (needs and desires of an individual in pain or facing the problem) such that these solutions can be converted into marketing opportunity. After why is established (i.e. if you have weighed the decision that you want to address those problems or they fall under your areas of interest and focus of providing value), it is then about how to move systematically and iteratively (continually) as a “solution designing or problem solving process” from the people who want or need the solutions to the solutions that people want or need. Design thinking is human centered approach to problem solving. It is iterative, collaborative and practical. The people (market) in pain (need) and people (who want to design and/or sell solution) in gain (profits), are always working together whether its dry or rain (irrespective of the market environment and inherent challenges). It is about being hands on. It is always about looking from the perspective of customers (people in pain). Every decision in the process of solving a problem, if customer centric. It improves the internal processes for designing, producing and selling the solution.
Design thinking origins as back 1950s and 1960s. In those days it was mostly about the impact of the World War II in terms of application of new knowledge and strategic thinking to industrial design, production and management of operations. It is always an human effort in the realm of creative thinking to make this thinking (about designing a system that solves a problem) as a systematic process or approach i.e. more and more scientific and predictable.
However it is unreasonable to say all problems can be solved at any given point in time. To solve a problem, one might need resources to exist so that a system designer can put them together to work in a particular and consistently repeated manner i.e. imposed by a design construct (arrived after multiple rounds of experimentation or cycles of learning-thinking-doing-reflecting).
Experimentation and its outcome can be planned predictably. There are certain things in the process of designing a system or solution that needs learning through a discovery, that needs one to first carry or try out an experiment and then see if this works or fails to deliver the intended outcome. If the experiments yield unexpected outcomes, these data points and observations are then once again pushed to the design table to re-think and attempt a new design to be prototyped and validated. Irrespective of the problem or industry domain, such a process of innovation or problem solving, that deals with new resources or new designs, needs experiments to be carried out as a part of the learning through discovery phases. It takes time and remains uncertain in terms of putting a closure date to this. The only way to make things move faster at this stage (crashing the fuzzy end of the innovation process) , is to do as many well defined experiments and as quickly as possible.
Not all problems need experimentation and also many times, if right resources are missing or non-existent (lets say yet to be invented or not accessible) or if there are resources available (already invented or discovered) then the real challenge is perhaps purely to “somehow” figure out the solution by designing or architecting a system using these resources (including information as a resource) and construct it to show how it would work in a particular manner to claim that it has really solved a stated problem as per the laid objectives (criteria of acceptance).
In 1960s, the term “wicked problem” was used (by Horst Rittel) to categorize such design problems which are complex or can not be solved. These are mostly multi-dimensional or inter-disciplinary in nature and needs a stretch on the designer’s mind and hence it can not be imposed. It needs an internal motivation and serendipity of time in terms of an immersion and persistence to find a spark that can light the dark tunnel. This is the spark of genius or creative mind or invisible intervention of time and serendipity. This “genius” aspect of solving a problem is deeply routed in a cognitive and curious mind. It has been ever a subject of codification in itself for many who wants to see this creative outcome of a mind or thinking, a predictable or certain way of thinking or a disciplined process by itself. This impediment is given in any creative problem solving process as it involves learning or acquiring new knowledge through experimentation as well as a discovery (finding unknowns).
In 1970s, the hence the principles of design thinking started to emerge, as it “designing” a system and how the system works needed a creativity which needs to be explained, abstracted and then codified, so that it can be passed in some way as a learning or skill, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of thinking when it comes to designing a system or solution. People have been always seen quoting that we are teaching how a system works to help people think and learn but we are not teaching how to think and learn. The later part is still a puzzle at large. But it has become a subject of cognitive scientists to experiment and explore, to codify the science behind such a creative thinking. Even in the field of music and painting, the next generation is taught as to how to pick these artistic skills scientifically in a structured or disciplined manner. However, it is up to an individual as to how it can generate a unique outcome based on how uniquely it applies the acquired skills and knowledge (by putting oneself sophistically i.e. the factor of human artifice into the center of it).
Herbert A. Simon first mentioned about design a way of thinking in his book “The Sciences of the Artificial”. He then contributed many ideas that become the principles of design thinking. It dealt with rapid prototyping and testing through observations which are the core parts of discovery led system design. It cements the very intuitive thought that to understand how the system or design works, one has to construct it first and then see (observe) how it behaves. There is no one particular way to play a chess on a board (man-made or synthetic object) , even if it is played using a set of simple rules. The nature does not obey or restricts itself to such a board play (dots and connections as one moves from one state to another are infinite, in a real world) and we have yet not learnt all its rules (many things are yet to be invented or discovered, while we are still occupied with understanding fully what is already existing or known). Natural science is still a subject of exploration (unknowns). The man-made world is a subject of exploitation (knowns). It is a subject of engineering to synthesize (develop synthetic products and solutions based on the known properties of the resources or objects) while science is a subject of analysis. Engineers and designer need to think about how the systems ought to work or function to attain the set goals.
Man-made world is synthetic and it has artificial products assembled by human beings which can appear or work in a identical or analogous manner (imitation is inherently explicit as they use the same rationales taught and practiced uniformly through the education system) and can characterized in terms of environment (or frame of reference), functions (or inputs or outcomes), resources (or artifacts or objects or substances or systems or sub-systems or components) and relationships (or source of energy or potential gradient or associations in terms of causes and effects or interfaces between inner and outer environments hence distinguishing one object from another in terms of boundaries the defines independent or uniquely predictable existence or behavior). While designing a system, the environment (or in terms of the characteristics) remains the same, it is the inner environment of the system that needs to be designed. The system designed so (and all its adaptations), interacts with its outer environment. Example: A ship (a system) that is designed to operate in an ocean (an environment) to achieve particular goal or outcome (transportation). A system has a boundary that differentiates its existence from its outer environment and the interact through an interface (that connects the inner environment of the system with its outer environment). This insulation of inner environment can then help to predictably and economically adapt or design a system in various ways through a process of creative thinking (experimentation and iterations).
However when we assess a problem at hand, it could fall under a domain of a known problem and known solution problem space (i.e. almost entirely in the purview of a man-made world). In such a case, it can be solved more as a linear or stage gate process. In case where problem is not known (yet to be defined clearly by anyone) and the solution does not exist (unknown – to be discovered or invented) or problem is defined clearly (known) but solution is still be discovered or invented, it needs a path of experimentation and learning by trial and errors i.e. creative thinking.
In 1973, Robert H McKim in his book Experience in Visual Thinking, mentioned above the role visual thinking plays in designing a solution or system (design thinking). Visualization is an art. He stressed how this form of art is so crucial even when one ha to think of designing a scientific system (understanding how things work and how the problems can be solved, example architects and designers use symbols and notations to diagrammatically represent the system and how it works). In short, he emphasized, that the creative problem solving is both a left and right brain thinking process. One that exploits the known efficiently (can be trained on the existing knowledge or augmented by an artificial system trained on the existing knowledge) and the other that is about exploration (in search of an unknown or new or creative outcome that is yet not discovered or does not exist). The work of these two authors, formed sufficient basis for taking the subject of thinking about the designs, as a separate and standalone subject in itself i.e. design thinkin methodology as we know today.
In 1980s, problem solving approaches were being more discussed and debated or compared in the scientific communities. Design thinking was then being compared with Architecture. Nigel Cross worked on design thinking and how the (system) designers think. He published series of articles titled ‘Designerly Ways of Knowing’. He basically compared, how a designer thinks with how a non-designer thinks when it comes to solving an ambiguous problem in our day to day lives. Bryan Lawson, compared how a scientist thinks with how a designer thinks. He concluded that scientists would systematically explore every possible combination and would formulate an approach to quickly and efficiently solve a problem or see the combination passes the test criteria or rule or not and the designers would like to create multiple combinations and see or observe if it fits the given rule or criteria. He concluded that scientists are problem focused (they want tp explore all the combinations in a systematic manner and test all these combinations against the set rule or criteria) when it comes to solving a problem and designers were solution focused (they want to quickly generate large number of solutions somehow or practically possible and then eliminate what will not work i.e. they do not spend too much time on the analysis of the problem).
The solution focused approach to problem solving was termed as “Designerly Way of Problem Solving”. Herbert Simon calls this thinking of “satisficing” and not “optimizing”. Designers are producing solutions and alternatives that satisfies the given condition or rule and that might not be the optimal one. This is the behavior exhibited by designers, architects and engineers. In real world, it is not possible to try to out all the combinations (when the possible combinations are extremely large and complex time and cost consuming) and then figure out which is the optimal one (in terms of say a human judgment for an acceptance). While theoretically, all these combinations (alternative solutions or variants or concepts) can be called out but practically it wont make sense to construct all of them and then observe or take feedback (user acceptance). Both the thinking is needed but in the human centric world of rolling out solutions quickly, a designer mindset is unavoidable when it comes to choosing and implementing a solution.
In 1987, Peter Rowe published his book ‘Design Thinking’. He focused on how architectural designers approach their tasks through an inquisitive lens of creativity. By this time, with so much of focus on how designer thinks and publication or literature on such a subject, it become evident that this can fly on its own as a separate field of research. In 1991, IDEO brought Design Thinking into mainstreams calling it out a design mindset and a method for solving a human centric problem. They basically implemented those theories and findings as their own customer friendly approach to designing solutions for their customers and made this approach (steps and toolkits) public. It gained a popularity as people could see design methodology being implemented and propagated and hence they wanted it to be taught too. In 1992, Richard Buchanan published an article discussing how design thinking and wicked problems are inter-linked and how over the years the efforts of different people and accumulation of knowledge result into formation of specializations like in case of ‘design thinking’ which then helps people to further build upon the existing knowledge and disseminate it systematically as a holistic process.
In 2004, David Kelly propagated design thinking by founding Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford (commonly known as d.school). It has now led to rolling out the courses by many other institutes to further these efforts systematically through the footsteps of the educational institutes as well. It is now rapidly gaining momentum and although pioneers like IDEO or d.school brought it into mainstream but now, even they would need to follow others who would pave this path forward by adopting or customizing it further based on their interpretation to suit their specific context or problem solving domains. In short, post WWII, the world of scientists, architects, engineers and designers, has to led a formation of specialization (design thinking) so that this research can be more structured and followed across the industries , eventually leading to better outcomes i.e. efficiency and effectiveness of problem solving process as such because more and more organizations are looking at ways to pragmatically codify their own creative problem solving process.
What initially, started as industrial design as a focus area, people are now thinking about it as to what sense does it make to them from across various fields.
Rate of innovation and adoption is currently unimaginable. There plenty of choices in the markets under each product category and the shelf lives of the products have been reducing with time. Customers keep trying newer versions and they are open to change and adopt them at a rate more frequent than it used to be earlier (with so many rapid releases almost on a daily or weekly basis, the software products have blurred into services – SaaS). Services have become experiences. Customers are no longer consuming products or services, they are consuming experiences (moments of truth) and markets have become experience economies.
Customers have become active in their participation (more expressive than ever) with the brand and this participation keeps them engaged for the future that they envisage, to make their lives meaningful and interesting. Incumbents (BMW, Daimler, Rio Tinto) are being threatened by upstarts (Tesla, Vale). Brands do not accept traditions any more, they only respect innovations. In short, design thinking has been the need of the hour and the brands are now in the business of designing and delivering experiences. Experiences are multi-dimensional and complex and goes deep into how well the products and services work for each of the customers.
The same product or service, delivers different experience to different customers. There are many factors or attributes that come together and shape these experiences. Selling a product or service is quite different from selling or delivering an experience. The digital platforms are not experience economies. It is a mindset level change or shift. It is an ecosystem play and involves working with customers in communities under social influence with empathy, privacy, personalization, purpose, responsiveness, respect, trust, stewardship, convenience and infectious dynamism. These are the mindsets in the age of digitization driven by data and machine learning.
Almost all leading organizations (B2B and B2C) are nudging their employees that they are being paid by their customers and they all are directly accountable for the customer experiences that are being delivered at each moment of truth. These experiences are being delivered remotely and digitally and the customer expectations are growing with more and more interactions with the brand. It is not just sufficient anymore to have a superior product or services. It needs to be rendered as an experience and engagement, as per the expectations.
This is an advent of newer business mode. Netflix is selling personalized digital experiences delivered on anywhere and on any device, on subscription basis as against selling a movie ticket at the box-office, even the later has gone online when it comes to buying a ticket. People are extensively following each of these movies and they are voicing their opinions openly over social platforms which are influencing the experiences to be delivered. It has become selling over an ecosystem which is virtual or digital experience centric where customers are always-on, mobile, connected, hyper/actively engaged and influencing each other. There are problems and opportunities, that need to be addressed almost on daily basis. Almost all the employees working for the brand to deliver the customer experience, need to think like a designer or problem solver. In short, design thinking as a mindset, skill and tools is for one and all. Everyone is being expected to be a design thinker now as a hygiene part of innovation culture (experience economies) – empathy, experimentation, engagement, experience and expectations. Problem solving mindset has been routinized. Customers no longer expecting “I don’t know” as a response to their queries and they are expecting issues to be resolved instantly. It needs all employees to think with an autonomy for their customers and solve these problems (find solutions or improvise existing solutions for reliability and scalability) as design thinkers. Its the digital age expected employee behavior of habit. They are expected to creative individuals. It is a competitive world and its the creativity at the core as a competitive advantage that differentiates one company (built to last) from the rest.
User centered design, human centered design, user experience and design thinking are often used as terms inter changeably. But they are different. They have different origins. User centric design is to understand the “user” and what a users would need. and then design solutions to meet these needs. Then the user acceptance testing is done to evaluate these solutions. Then based on the user feedback, the solution is modified in order to make sure the user is satisfied. So focusing on the users, creating its personas and articulating their needs and addressing them by designing the products and/or services that best meet their needs (assessed during user acceptance testing). In human centered design, you don’t look at the end user who would be using the product and/or service. You would keep all other users involved participating in the solution and not necessarily the end user or specific user in mind. Human centered designs, need to be desirable, feasible and viable. Once the problems are analyzed first and then solutions are designed, evaluated and implementation (iteratively).
In design thinking as a method, there is a need to first understand the users (who are they?) and their pains (what matters to them?). This needs a designer mindset of being empathetic. Empathy is the attribute that is needed in the designer in order to be comfortable with the customer and understand them. They continually define the problem or pain from the customer’s perspectives. They develop point of views based on the user needs and understanding. Observations (market insights) are captured. After empathizing and defining the pains and problems from the customer’s perspective, there is a brainstorming done to gather as many creative ideas or solutions as possible. All kinds of ideas are encouraged and the judgment rests with the customer and not with the designers in the room. These ideas or solutions are then discussed with the customer before shortlisting and making prototypes. These prototypes are better forms or representations of underlying solutions and worth as basis to get better feedback from the customers. Building upon these ideas and showing it to others.
Prototypes are less expensive and fastest and detail enough a method to give a feel of a product or service to the customer and get a comprehensive feedback from the customer. It will give an idea about whether the customer would be keen to buy the solution if this solution is developed into a market opportunity. Also at prototype stage all stakeholders who need to procure resources and manufacture or assemble the products or solution etc, can also provide comprehensive feedback on how feasible it is for them to produce and scale. If anything stops (what does not work or what would work and how? i.e. feasibility rating) from taking a prototype to the market as a solution, it is brainstormed first from technical feasibility and market viability (cost of resourcing, manufacturing and selling and profitably delivering the solution till the end point i.e. MRP in the hands of the customer) perspective before taking it for a demonstration and gathering feedback from the client (user or customer acceptability i.e. desirability rating). So the solution must be desirable (customer wants or needs are significantly perpetual, unmet and distinctive and customers would buy if there is an appropriate or better solution for it in the market), feasible (possible to build and supply at a scale the market needs) and viable (is profitable and competitively sustainable with an advantage that cane be developed over a relevant period of time).
Design Thinking As a [Method or Problem Solving Process – Human Centered Designing – Iterative Stages or Phases] : Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test. Design Thinking As a [Mindsets] and [Modes of Multiple Thinking Across Iterations or Iterative Stages or Phases and Supporting Tools/Skills]. The diagram that is typically used to present these phases looks like the process is largely linear. However, the activities are expected to iterate across these phases. At the same time since it is at a generic level, one can not enforce one particular way of solving a problem. It is not exactly as prescriptive as the exact implementation is left to the organization and type of the problem on the table to be solved.
Empathize – [Seeking to understand with an “Empathy” without being judgmental, problem solving, crisis management, ideality versus reality, diversity and inclusion, inquisitiveness, Listening, Observing, Deferring Judgment, Prioritization, Problem Framing and Reframing, Purposeful Thinking , Human Centricity, Mindfulness, Embracing Change, Eliminating Contradictions, Top-down, Training , Stakeholder Management, Innovation and Problem Solving Culture] : [Interviewing, Shadowing, Moments of Truth, Journey Mapping, Mind Mapping, Root Cause Analysis, Empathy Mapping, Collaboration Across Organizational Boundaries, Metaphors, Analogies, Design Briefs .. ]
Define – [Defining problems from user’s perspectives, define problems as user needs (not as business needs), reframing questions to gather and explain the needs]: [Challenges, Pain Points, Personas, Role Objectives, Reframing, Moments of Truth, Journey Mapping, Problem Exploration, Stakeholder Map, Perception Maps, Focus Groups…] : Human Centered Vs Market Centered. Like What people do instead of what people say, how people will use the product instead of what people will buy, offer small sample size versus offering in large sample sizes, have a deep and focused insights, intellectually empathetic versus scientifically objective, Explore new solutions, market and opportunities in time horizons by looking at same things or problems from other people’s perspective.
Ideate – [All Ideas are good , Share Ideas, Hold Judgement, Challenging Assumptions, Open Innovation, Adaptive Imitation, Value Chain & Propositions, Ideas …] : [Diverge Converge, Prioritize, Journey Mapping, Moments of Truth, Analogous Design, Designing For Ideality, Ideation Triggers, Brainstorming…]: Ideas ideas generated as a solution is not to be judged internally. It should have a customer’s opinion too when it comes to idea selection for prototyping. Segway was a false positive while Seinfeld was a false negative. Of course the final judgment is awaited at the stage of validation of a prototype and testing of the shortlisted prototypes as minimum viable products in the market. Hence hold judgments during divergent thinking that is needed during ideation. At this stage is a divergent thinking. One should have as many ideas as possible and build as many concepts as possible. For instance, it could be about offering a solution over a mobile application as well as a website. A prototype can be built for both to validate both of these concepts quickly. We never know, what percentage of traffic would come from which channel until it is prototyped and then tested. Creative thinking is a gradual and iterative process and not necessarily a proverbial leap of faith. It is a series of motivated cycles of thinking, learning, researching and conceptualizing mental activities as an individual and as a group (close and/or open).
There is no scarcity constraints at ideation phase. There is no cost of visualizing or suggesting a new concept and hence abundance of ideas or concepts is a desired outcome or luxury that the teams can enjoy. Being judgmental at this stage is flawed with dangers. The market behaves differently at times the way designers would think about their ideas. What a team judges as a stupid or sub-optimal idea or solution, might be the one that actually ends up selling the most in the market.
Prototype – [Iterate Quickly, Fail Fast (Succeed Soon), Show and Tell (demonstrate), Learning By Doing, Local Maxima versus Global Maxima. Understanding By Simulation, Experimentation, Hypotheses, Collaboration] : [Mockups, Storyboards, Scenarios, Concept Development, Moments of Truth, Role Plays, Contexts, Perception Mapping, Narratives, Metaphors, Myths, Biases, Facts, Reports, Trends, Wireframing, Journey Mapping, Prototype or Experiment Database (Source of Inspiration), Evaluation, Serendipity, Unsolved Problems, Cross-Pollination, Dogfooding, Connecting the dots, Idea Campaigns, Hackathon, Innovation Contests…]: It is a phase that prioritizes the spirit of showing or demonstrating as an integral part of doing, as soon as there is a spark (concept that can be implemented) that gets generated during the ideation phase. Making things work in reality or demonstrating the system in action is an economic decision. It needs resources. Hence the laws of economic get inherently ignited at this stage. Not all concepts can be converted into prototypes. Even though these artifacts need to be numerous and low-fidelity crafts, they need time, resources and money to be incurred. Hence concepts to be turned into prototypes need to be first evaluated and prioritized (for sequential or parallel construction for validations and feedback). It needs an entrepreneurial mindset as one can start computing the cost of resources required and potential profit that can be maximized if the prototype (a wireframe or bare-bone representation) succeeds in terms of validation (based on a set criteria for acceptance) and gets shortlisted for testing with the customer (resulting into budgeting for a full fledged MVP in the testing phase).
Prototypes (of products or process or service or business) must be built rapidly (with minimum planning and maximum action) and iterated (converted and perfected as abstract ideas into low fidelity solutions) to get a feedback (constructive criticism for improvements and funding). In movie making, there is a practice of doing screen test (for a critical scene or scenario in a story board) before committing the entire role the actor. If that critical scene shot does not yield the expected impact or emotions or experience from the target audience, it does not make sense to go ahead and take a risk with that actor, for the designated role play. Another way to gather a feedback and anticipate the future is to develop a teaser (case of high fidelity for a deferred judgment ) and plan for a remedial course correction while mag the product or distributing or marketing or selling it. AR/VR technologies can also help in simulating a scenario and interacting live with the audience and gaining from their feedback and experiences. Social change or process has often been brought forth for cultural shifts through role plays and skits and making the people or target audience to be more aware of the change and impact. This is how the doubts and dampeners and their impacts can be identified and addressed early on. Each moment of truth needs to be experienced (and validated) before the final product or service ships out of the door and it gets too late to edit or modify and make amends.
Every feedback is a nudge to converge the prototype towards an incrementally better version of a probable or nearest solution (finished product) to the problem. For instance, massive avalanche of customers could bring down the website, if such scenarios are not envisaged and accounted for properly. The ones that get validated, get the trust, funding and stakeholder commitment for developing a minimum viable product or process for to be tested in the market within the select customers or segments. A prototype is something that looks like a final or probable solution while a minimum viable product or process is somethin that works like a final or probable solution.
A prototype is meant for the purpose of a demo and validation of concepts (directional course) as a feedback. One could have multiple prototypes. Failing at prototype level is a learning process. More they are, the better it is, as a learning outcome. Fear of failure while validating prototypes (it is less time and cost consuming exercise) should be seen as a joy of experimentation. MVP is meant for the purpose of actual use and testing outcome (course correction or pivoting) as a feedback. MVP can borrow and sum up various validated concepts from multiple successful prototypes. Prototypes drive MVP thinking process and are indicators of progress in a product development process. They bring the team one step closure to making abstract ideas into a reality. They eliminate doubts, remove impediments and reduce total cost of failures (monetary and non-monetary like reputation and morale). Failures at this stage is just a type of a learning process. For Edison, the successful ones were the real sources of inspiration and the unsuccessful ones (experiments) were the perspiration (cost and time) needed to filter the successful ones from the rest. Diverse low-fidelity mock-ups of a solution open to destruction (and/or reuse for other experiments) and built rapidly at low or no cost, is the underlying premise at this phase.
Failed prototypes pave the learning ground for the next iterations. It tells other what has been already visited as a path to experiment and what had worked and what did not. This hence helps the same or other teams in the next iterations in the future, as to what to learn and how to make these experiments more effective and efficient. How to reuse the learnings in the past whichever are relevant. In short more and more experimentation leads to reduction is experimentation and failure costs. As the experiments in future can better in terms of quality and quantity, as more and more are done and shared as lessons learnt or case studies internally or evangelized as a part of innovation and problem solving process.
The existence and references to such assets adds to the entrepreneurial serendipity for being revived or reused or repurposed perhaps for some other purpose or problem to be solved in the future. Failed experiments serves as a fodder (learning assets) for an experimental mindset. An experimental mindset will fire up the scientific pursuits and data as a the basis of making decisions. Experimental mindset to problem solving is always better than an argumentative mindset (i.e. wherein the chances of making a sup-optimal decision on the basis of HiPPO (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion) or expert opinions is much higher). Having experiments around doubts are much better than having arguments around them, as a culture for problem solving and innovation.
Designers think through such evidences or prototypes or experimentations or learning by doing. Simulations can also help in adapting a system or design or revealing a new knowledge by experiencing and supporting it with appropriate reasoning (wherever practically it is difficult to implement so many prototypes). Simulation has numerous applications in engineering design and adaptations wherein the fundamental laws of behavior of the components of the systems are well known (i.e. man-made or artificial or synthetic systems).
Prototype is an evidence that an idea or concept works or fails (how and why?). It is a good way to have self-criticism too rather than debating and prioritizing based on the idea or concept in isolation. Prototyping is about empathy in action, rough idea or concept and not perfect product, validation of concepts and not about detailed working of a solution, iterations and course corrections or pivoting or refining, hypotheses and experimentation, failing fast at an insignificant cost/budget or any loss of market reputation, minimum planning, maximum or rapid action, low fidelity or paper thin or bare bone solution, generating evidence, increasing confidence and harmony within the teams, flattening peaks and sparks of intellectuality, eliminating biases, surprises and doubts, validating assumptions and avoiding guesswork, persuasive communication, early feedback from the user or customer, gradually and procedurally building a finished product, learning by doing, evaluating tangible ideas and showing and not telling.
An idea is better than a meeting. A scenario is better than an idea. A story is better than a scenario. A role play is better than a story. A prototype is better than a role play. MVP is better than a prototype. Finished product is better than an MVP. It is a gradual and step by step process towards a successful introduction of a change or development of a solution to solve a problem. Prototyping as a way of experimentation is the safest option to try something new and this is intuitively being exploited by many organizations. It is one the best ways to remove ambiguity, confusion and elements of distrust and doubts. One can build prototypes without any fear of failure (failing often is about succeeding sooner and eliminating surprises). Many of them would fail but none of them should leave us from adding to the knowledge base (which incrementally grows with time leading to effective and efficient experimentation). Incremental knowledge base is a sign of scientific and disciplined progress.
Leaders should lead the teams with experimental mindsets. They need to be open to providing autonomy to their teams to test freely and criticize responsibly or respectfully. Also experimenting means not knowing how a concept works. If it is clear how it works or does not wont upfront, it does not need any experimentation. Prototype validation is about validating a hypothesis underlying it. A large solution can be broken down into multiple parts or subsystems and each subsystem or part could help validate a specific hypothesis (should have a clear purpose). The most complex or difficult or uncertain part of the concept or solution (unexpected by the audience or speaks to the emotions of the audience (i.e. the reactions are unknown) that breaks the existing pattern i.e. it is not so obvious but is a hard fact or truth and builds the ground to learn more about the biases and subconscious mind of the audience) must be experimented or prototyped first (not all the parts or the entire solution).
Components or parts that are certain in terms of the expected outcomes (already done in past or operates concretely and has a simple justification or have known implementation) need not be prototyped at all as they do not present any risk to the solution or concept. This is also in line with the fail fast principle i.e. choose that part of the concept or solution which has the highest risk of failure, of not working as expected. The most difficult part will take the maximum effort and hence it should be the first experiment to be performed. It is the right start to early finish the prototype based concept testing. Based on the observation or validation outcomes (what works and what not), they can be iterated or refined further (persuasive commitment). Validation yields data that compliments an intuition (reliability and technical feasibility of a concept).
Test – [Understand impediments, iterate quickly, Degree of satisfaction (good enough solution) versus Discontent From Absence (lack of no or delayed optimal solution), Psychology of choice and temporal utility function, Solicit timely feedback in a non-judgmental manner on desirability, technical feasibility and business viability, Gamification, Incentivization For Honest & Timely Feedback, ..] : [Analyzing what worked and what not?,…] : If an e-commerce platform to sell multiple categories of products is the final solution (a definition of a finished product) that needs to be built. Building it for one category first properly with basic minimum functionalities to satisfy a specific customer segment is a minimum viable product. It is once again about setting the team with a mindset to go for an iterative product development , starting with a successful MVP testing and series of improvisations based on the continuous customer or market feedback (or termination if MVP fails to seek market traction as a viable or profitable value proposition in the duration or horizon as envisaged).
MVP followed by iterations for production development and extensions (scaling) are just another but cautious phases of testing. Experimentation never stops even after the product lands in the hands of the customer. These experiments at this phase start taking the shape of A/B testing mindsets. It is based on the assumption of procedural rationality. It is tough to build so many assumptions into a product. The product is better if it is built upon limited and validated assumptions in each iteration. This has a less risk and cost of implementation and has a less creative burden on the product designers. A product or finished product is an incremental development effort and the rationality (and hence the growth) is delivered procedurally over a period of time through iterative cycles of product development and testing. This is all the more important when there is more uncertainly and ambiguity around the problems (and expected solutions). Iterative development or procedural rationality is inherently about de-risking the problem solving process and addressing the complexities involved in designing the system. In real world “good enough” systems survive the test (and make profits) if they are delivered on time. A highly optimized solution but delivered when its not needed (before or after its time), has no practical utility as such.
While prototyping may not be that planning intensive activity (it is still embedded in the realms of the creative freedom) but development (MVP) and testing are highly planning intensive activities (time, risk, cost and quality driven). Prototyping could be attributed to more of self-regulated exercise in order to provide creative freedom for diversity. Development and testing needs planning and disciplined execution as this phases falls under the zone of no or minimal ambiguity. At this stage it is about also finding various market forces at play that ride the customer satisfaction and segmentation aspects related attributed linked to the solution. It is the stage when it is dealing with the customer expectations (and acceptance) more than the uncertainties around the solution (development or technical feasibility of implementation) as such.
In cases where MVP is hard to find its first audience, be the one i.e. the brand can itself use and test it as well (dogfooding, eating your own cake or pie). Let your own organization (lead or internal users) be the hardest or toughest critics, before it goes out the customers in public domain. It is a fundamental practice followed by many organizations. They use it themselves and keep refining and improving it till they have highly stable product that gives them confidence to roll it out with an ease and certainty.
Grow – [Continual Growth, Renewal and Business-As-Usual, Performance Management, Lean Start-up, Business Model] [ Business Model Canvas, Innovation Evangelism] : Being in this phase is being in a sweet spot with luxury of time, funds and brand equity to experiment on a large scale and business canvas. It paves the way to diversify and even be a conglomerate. Growth means, customers’ feedback as they use or not use the products sold to them become a day to day affair or source of inspiration and empathy to keep the creative problem solving agenda (reversing or reverting to ideation and prototype phases once again). It is going to be always a push and pull set of activities between ideation, prototyping and testing as the product gets built and scaled in the market in a gradual but tested manner, post MVP (or market launch or introduction). It inspires the team or brand to come up with other product extensions, to grow them as a portfolio of products with a competitive advantage so garnered with time and help the brand to diversify the product portfolio. This leads to making business and investment decisions pertaining to growth and focus as a part of portfolio management (based on the other business trends and investment opportunities and the associated opportunity costs with them).
Maximization of profit is a function of satisfaction and not that of economic optimality. If that had not been true, we would have got only one product or solution for each problem. For instance, we would have been running with only one model of car but instead we have so many variants or choices or adaptations to satisfy different needs of different customer segments at different prices or economic factors (utility values). Growth is about the competitive theory of games and economic behaviors of the market. This is the phase that goes beyond the designers of the product to the designers of the business model around the products or solutions. It is about solving marketing and selling problems around the products like dealing with customer perceptions and positioning the solution in the right sweet spot against its competition (or alternative solution). Growing the business around products, does not necessarily means opening more factories for plant operations. One can take the tested products to scale through outsourced or contract manufacturing i.e. decentralization of operations. The organization hence has to work on evolving the customer loyalty and social influence, to be identified with the brand that it owns and positions in the market (and not with the contract manufacturers). At this stage, business growth becomes an evolutionary model for developing a brand around the product that it sells in the market. Customer eventually buys or associates itself with a brand (not a product as such, which can be many that are already existing in the market).
Since this method is collaborative. It means to solve a same problem, many people from different functions like designing, manufacturing and marketing need to come together as one unit to solve the customer problem. In case the product is a software, it could be products, development, testing and marketing teams coming together and working as a one team across the five phases together. Each stage is a part of a method, each stage inherits set of mindsets that people need to have to make the method work in its targeted spirit and soul and then each stage needs certain kind or mode of thinking like defining is about understanding a problem and prototyping is about engineering a solution for testing purposes etc. Hence each of these people from different team have different roles across these phases. They come with their own domain know-how and tools as they need to produce insights and solutions or supporting materials based on their focus area or lenses. Like Marketing team will need to focus on human first (customer and employee centricity and creativity), brand, value proposition, journey, conversations and revenues in as much detail as possible from across the fours phases of design thinking. Revenue means for example, marketing team need to design its research instruments during test phase to find out what pricing would work and what variants of the product or solution are possible based on the market segments etc. Revenue perspective, also means perfecting on story telling so that these messages and insights could be embedded in the marketing communications (branding, advertising) later when scaling and selling the solution.
Evaluating prototypes or testing them or MVP (including self-criticism) in a systematic is as such not provided or prescribed in the design thinking method. It is left at an abstract level and is expected to be customized for implementation from organization to organization. Hence it is not about as much skills and tools. It is more about the principles or philosophy or mindset that needs to be there while solving the problems. Just like six thinking is method for brainstorming and can be leveraged as a tool if the ideation phase is brainstorming driven. There are many tools for ideation like TRIZ or TOC of Six Sigma etc which based on what makes sense, is to be used for solving the problem. One can compare these phases with other problem solving process or methods even at the highest level of abstraction or generic level. At implementation level, they are bound to change from one organization to another, from one type of problem to another. However, depending upon the type of problem i.e. cause and effect driven versus correlation and model driven or optimization driven or lateral design driven, human centric or technology centric, inventive or non-inventive or knowledge driven etc and based on the type of industry or technical domain, these the best fit path can be followed as a process and tool.
However, the mindset across these phases are like the directions at the abstract or thinking level that all involved need to posses. And some problems which need to be solved as more as practical problems which involve social or human behavioral aspects, which involves problems that are not straight forward optimization or cause and effect problems (better left to six sigma and optimization process of solving problems), which involves multiple organizations in the ecosystem or departments within the organization etc are best suited to have certain mindsets to be followed while thinking during ideation or prototyping or experimenting and testing etc. The concept of (a) choice of problem that needs certain mindsets to solve them and (b) the mindsets that needs to be followed, these two are packed with insights and examples by its proponents under generic phases of problem solving and shared under the buzz word of design thinking.
As long as one understands the choice or types problems (that are human centric) that needs rigorous client connect or engagement for definition and validation of idea in order arrive at a solution quickly which gets acceptable to the client at the earliest, the mindsets as proposed under the term “design thinking” are worth looking at for implementation and of course one can keep improvising upon them too based on their own experiences as what works and what not for them. However these mindsets are very intuitive and its just that they have been brought together or extracted out from the typical problem solving processes that people follow and highlighted separately.
Design thinking hence is more about way of thinking. It brings certain mindsets that work for both the product designers and non-designers working together as a team. Hence anything like principles or mindsets that can be common across the diversified teams can actually serve the purpose of a unifying them to the common goal while promoting diversity in thinking and opinion when they ideate or develop prototypes or experiment and iterate through these solutions with feedback from the customers and stakeholders.
Marketing Case Studies – what could be the “marketing” problems on which the marketing teams need to working in a designing thinking process focused on the human, brand, value proposition, journey, conversations or communications and revenues. Air BnB, PnG, PepsiCo, Nike, IBM, Uber Eats, Hearken, Bank of America
Non-linear growth needs non-linear thinking as one designs such a journey
Problems are multi-faceted and they don’t see the discipline based boundaries which are artificially set by humans for organizing educational or professional domain
As the technology matures and it takes more work away into the fold of automation, it leaves humans with more time for thinking. Thinking process needs to be made more disciplined for a socially predictable human behavior in personal or professional sphere. Because is there is no thinking level process to streamline it, there would different objectives and approaches honed by people leading to more of conflicts and chaos and less of collaboration, consensus and productive outcomes. Hence there is a need to allow diversity in thinking around a unity of a problem. A process, that can take all together on a common course of solving problems and making the best of marketing opportunities.
Thinking about the problem (with an existing solution or ecosystem) as a human problem (with a lens of empathy) and swaying it towards the eventual solution (solving as an iteration) including when passing through the zone of ambiguity and creativity (research and experimental uncertainty), can be defined in terms of a method (process, activities, tasks, outcomes), man or mindsets (people, roles, skills), machines (modes of execution, tools) and money (performance). In short, as a process, people, technology and performance. Design thinking has come to prominence because of the work done by IDEO, Stanford d. school, LUMA Institute and MIT Labs. We are designed as a human, to work and evolve through repetitive acts of learning, thinking, doing and reflecting. Thinking persists while learning or doing or reflecting. It is a fundamental survival instinct or unit of action as a response to any kind of stimulus. When humans are coming together to solve or work on a same problem, this thinking needs to be tunneled as they come together to learn, do and reflect, for a common purpose. The best way to bring harmony and unity is to train the teams to follow set of some common guidelines articulated as mindsets which are standard as a norm across the organization (even across the organizations in a supply chain or society). The method and mindsets need to be standardized at an abstract level i.e. it should be generic enough that it can be applied to any kind of a problem (any domain or department) that needs to be solved (at an abstract level).
People in the past have given various shades to the thinking as a process – lean thinking, design thinking, lateral thinking, critical thinking, creative thinking etc. However, thinking has been just tagged depending upon how we normally think in a given situation or scenario i.e. the context of its application. It is not about categorizing them and positioning them as one better than other. It is just that, one form of thinking might be more suitable (in terms of solving a problem) in a given situation than the other. Design thinking is for solving practical problems for day to day life including improvising and improving existing solution incrementally. Every time a change or new solution or release is introduced, it goes through series of repercussion at the end of user as a part of its adoption and use process. Also every time, a change that is to be developed and introduced as a feature or enhancement etc, needs to be validated first if this is indeed in the direction of solving a customer problem or expectation or not. It hence needs a user consent both at a problem level and at a solution level before it could be set in its orbit of acceptance and adoption. Entire effort will fail if the change does not bring the intended additional value. This includes involving even those who procure, manufacture and market these changes (new features or enhancement or releases, new products or services etc). As the eventual outcome is sum total of thinking of all these stakeholders involved in this process, only to be paid later by the customer for their efforts. As these changes are very rapid these days especially in the world of say software, experimenting and iterating with empathy, is the only way to keep moving forward (failing faster on design table means succeeding faster in the market).
In cases, where the problems are known and well articulated and understand and solutions are known i.e. well defined, it just means there is less of thinking involved as such. Such products or solutions can be developed and delivered in a waterfall or linear or non-iterative or stage gate manner as there is no ambiguity or creative thinking or problem solving involved at any stage in the process. It is all about execution and scaling by the books (documented processes, activities and technologies or tools) almost like an automated operation (conceived and perfected over time for better resource utilization, speed and scale of production i.e. efficiency and effectiveness but not for innovation and customization). However, if the problems are not so clear and/or solutions are not working as intended or not known, it goes into the realm of understanding what people are thinking and doing about their problems. It is here, when design thinking would of help as it helps first streamline the people at a mindset level as a guideline and then engage them to operate collaboratively for a common cause. Customer and its expectations keep changing and hence there is never a point in the business, where one can say – I am done selling and I am out of it after the sales. Businesses are designed to be perpetual entity. In order to do so and sustain business perpetually, it is all about thinking of customer problems and solving them using a technology, one after the other, with the customer, every time and all the time. Business entity has no option but to stay with its customers, all the time – while it is using the existing solution (facing issues and communicating pain or suggesting something new or better or customization), getting upgraded for a better experience over an existing solution or transiting to a new solution all together. There is no way, business can afford to be out of the mind and sight of their customers and other stakeholders who make things happen. Before dominating the market, it needs one to be perfecting the mindset of being in the thick of its customers and stakeholders, all the time. Organizations hence need to design the thinking of their employees and stakeholders to be always thinking for and being with their customers – while sensitizing (feeling with empathy about them and their problems and benefits from the solution), selling, serving and sustaining the experiences. Proximity, collaboration and pro-consumption with the customers or users would always reduce Type-B errors (missing to enhance an existing or develop a new solutions for an unmet or unknown need or pain) as well as Type-A error (designing for a known need but failing to be accepted or sold in the market).
Experimentation introduces risk as well as brings the team together with the customer. However, a risk handled in a disciplined way as early as possible in the process is much cheaper and safer than left to be propagated in the system, only to come up later as a crisis. Such an organization, always run its processes and functions in a fire fighting mode all or most of the time i.e. dealing with the sins and ignorance committed in the past. Problem of the large organizations having so many people in its belly, is that it can not have all of them to engage with the customers. Customers too are not available for them for an interaction. So how do they get to empathize and relate to their customers across their journey or life time. It is hence a challenge to keep the teams immersed in the word of their existing or new customer. It needs an effort to have internal evangelism and cascaded interactions and collaboration across the teams, all the time. Initiatives and insights based on ML and Data Analytics, can happen in parallel to customer engagement in real time and behind the scenes without impacting customer directly. Hence customer engagement and experience management that cuts the organization, can not only improve employ engagement and experience, but could also keep them immersed in the world of their customers and contribute to the cause without being on the bench, at any given point it time. Customers have enough problems and expectations or desires to keep stretching the design thinkers. Hence the customer analytics and insights team must share these insights internally with all the stakeholders, on real time basis, and keep all engaged with the customers (get to think what their customers are thinking) and what they have to say now (listening) or next (sensing).
